CGL Speculation #7 Options

[LurkerOutThere]

I actually wasn't claiming either, the legal case is still proceeding and no indication to the contrary has been given. I'd mostly been biting my tongue and biding my time but since someone seemed confused with OS leap from logic I decided to provide context. You may call that what you will.

Addendum AH: Both your links are borked.

[Ancient History]

I actually wasn't claiming either, the legal case is still proceeding and no indication to the contrary has been given. I'd mostly been biting my tongue and biding my time but since someone seemed confused with OS leap from logic I decided to provide context. You may call that what you will.

I'd call it disingenuous, since your explanation was pretty much an attempt to undermine otakusensei and his post without actually addressing anything he was talking about.

Addendum AH: Both your links are borked.

Weird, they work at my end.

[Catadmin]

"Loren Coleman and Heather Coleman are the members of IMR."

Anyone else who thought they were an owner want to comment on that?

According to the legal paperwork for setting up an LLC (business, not person. @=), Members *are* Owners. There's a fine distinction, actually. Owners was never quite the correct word to begin with for this type of company. But it's a legal thing having to do with percentage of investment (not necessarily monetary investment) and therefore share ownership. Go to your local bookstore, check out the business section. You can find plenty of books on setting up these types of businesses, some of which give more detail. Also, the IRS codes for LLCs might help you understand the difference.

But, for the purposes of this discussion? Members and owners are essentially the same thing.

[Catadmin]

Addendum AH: Both your links are borked.

If you're talking about his Pacer links, all three worked for me just fine.

Otherwise, I have no clue what links you're referring to.

[Cthulhudreams]

According to the legal paperwork for setting up an LLC (business, not person. @=), Members *are* Owners. There's a fine distinction, actually. Owners was never quite the correct word to begin with for this type of company. But it's a legal thing having to do with percentage of investment (not necessarily monetary investment) and therefore share ownership. Go to your local bookstore, check out the business section. You can find plenty of books on setting up these types of businesses, some of which give more detail. Also, the IRS codes for LLCs might help you understand the difference.

But, for the purposes of this discussion? Members and owners are essentially the same thing.

We know that - you're the one completely missing the point.

There are supposed to be more members than just the pair of colemans - kid Chamelon for example. So if the colemans are the only members, what is up with that?

[knasser]

We know that - you're the one completely missing the point.

Uh, not meaning to be argumentative, but I didn't know that at least. The comments about how IMR can be listed as only having two owners when more than two people have paid to have stock in the company is interesting to me (and strange).

K.

[Kid Chameleon]

There are supposed to be more members than just the pair of colemans - kid Chamelon for example. So if the colemans are the only members, what is up with that?

A situation that we're all aware of and see no need to seek legal remedy at this time. Despite all the accusations that have been thrown out, you might notice that the only people bringing up the 'stock sale scandal' are people totally speculating about it. Really the license is the most enjoyable thing to speculate on, it's the next great adventure. Can Catalyst's people pull off the run? Will the opposition stop them? Will Topps make their own decision or will a great dragon buy them out, rename the venture Mustache Twirling Games and make the whole thing moot? Stay tuned!

[Kid Chameleon]

Uh, not meaning to be argumentative, but I didn't know that at least. The comments about how IMR can be listed as only having two owners when more than two people have paid to have stock in the company is interesting to me (and strange).

K.

For $1000 I'll tell you all about it.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

[tete]

Have a great day & if there are future court dates someone else gets to go. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
I live out of town and just came into town to see buddies.

Rojo

Thanks for going! I was considering going but getting away from work can be problematic.

[Cthulhudreams]

Uh, not meaning to be argumentative, but I didn't know that at least. The comments about how IMR can be listed as only having two owners when more than two people have paid to have stock in the company is interesting to me (and strange).

K.

Oh yeah, the number of members is the point - not whether they are called owners or members or partners or stockholders etc - it does point to some pretty shake corporate governance.

[tweak]

I dated a paralegal. I assure you she did.

This thread needs some of that love. It's so depressing.

[Catadmin]

There are supposed to be more members than just the pair of colemans - kid Chamelon for example. So if the colemans are the only members, what is up with that?

Otakusensi's quote of the legal document doesn't actually say they are the only members (though I admit to missing the word "the" in that legal statement). And the way that his (her?) question was phrased, I assumed it meant that he didn't understand the comment about "member", not that he was questioning the lack of other member/owner names. Since he hasn't responded to my post otherwise, I will continue to assume this until I hear otherwise.

[emouse]

There are supposed to be more members than just the pair of colemans - kid Chamelon for example. So if the colemans are the only members, what is up with that?

Urgru, who's knowledgeable about legal matters, explained it like this...

You're reading more into the declaration than is warranted. Lawyers on deadlines write to convey the points they need to convey. They're not perfect and neither is their prose. To me, that passage was meant to convey that IMR's counsel didn't have an opportunity to speak with key figures until AFTER speaking with the petitioners' counsel. I very strongly doubt it was intended to suggest that the Colemans are the sole owners of the LLC.

In other words, the counsel's statement was meant to state for the record who he talked to and when. The intent of the passage isn't to accurately enumerate all of the owners of IMR.

That known co-owners have not started freaking out is a sign that Urgru's interpretation is probably accurate.

[Cthulhudreams]

Yeah, but I found this bizarre

A situation that we're all aware of and see no need to seek legal remedy at this time.

Rather than what I expected was 'seems like a drafting error'

[fistandantilus4....]

For those of you new to the thread(s) Sensei is going to do everything in his power to spin every bit of news negatively. He will attack any press release or endeavor to pick it apart, but he will also attack the company if they don't comment all the while trying to keep up the motion of a neutral observer.

Sorry I'm a little late to the show, but what's with the unprovoked cheap shot? What I see here is more in line with pointless negative posts out of the blue than anything I see from otakusensei. Why don't you work on checking yourself before pointing the finger at others.

[LurkerOutThere]

Edit: Ya know what, nevermind:

Shit is getting cyclic again, so how about those unicorns?

[Kid Chameleon]

Edit: Ya know what, nevermind:

Shit is getting cyclic again, so how about those unicorns?

They need some help in the bullpen, the starters can only do so much. And their hitting is so inconsistent.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Forget the Unicorns. I want an update on the belly button ring!!

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Forget the Unicorns. I want an update on the belly button ring!!

Preferably with confirmation pictures...

Keep the Faith

[Fuchs]

Make your own thread about unicorns, please, and do not derail this.

So, what exactly is up with the membership question? How many members does that LLC have?

[Ancient History]

16 or 17 are the numbers I've heard.

[Fuchs]

And are they members, or just people without an actual member status? Or former members?

[MindandPen]

As a general rule, you're either a member or your not. Sort of like being a shareholder or not.

[Fuchs]

As a general rule, you're either a member or your not. Sort of like being a shareholder or not.

Which is why it's interesting to see a lawyer refer to the colemans as "the members" in an official document. That's not the kind of "Mistake" a lawyer should make at court.

[Taharqa]

Which is why it's interesting to see a lawyer refer to the colemans as "the members" in an official document. That's not the kind of "Mistake" a lawyer should make at court.

It depends on what the meaning of the "the" is.